St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-11-05

state OF ILLINOIS. 1t Is claimed tnaJ
pardon. to be valid, must be delivered,
and like deed to land, be accepted by
the grantee, and that where there is no
acceptance it is void. In respect of this
Well known Writer
on criminal law, Bishop, says, referring
to the case of the Uuited States against
Wilson:
Wilson had been indicted for robbing the
| United States mail and putting the life OF the
| driver in jeopardy. Highway robbery with
violence was then capital otfense, and he
was convicted and sentenced 10 death. Pres
| ident Jackson granted him pardon as far as
! the death penalty was concerned, but not TO
| include immunity from punishment on other
! indictments that had been returned against
! him. Wilson was again tried on another III
dictment, charging robbery without the aver
| ment of violence, and pleaded guilty. The
] question was raised by the court whether the
presidents pardon did not carry with it i'm
| munlty from further prosecution for the
same Offense, although not intended to do
so. The questions i'll the case
were certified TO the supreme court of
the United States, and Chief Justice Marshall
IN delivering the opinion Of the court said:
"A pardon is deed TO the validity Of which
delivery is essential, and delivery is not com
plete without acceptance. 1t may then be
rejected by the person 10 whom tits rendered,
and, if rejected, we have discovered no power
in the courts to force il on him. 1t may be
supposed that no being condemned TO death
would reject pardon, but the rule must be
the same in capital cases as i'll misdemeanorS.
a pardon NAV be conditional and the condi-
| ton may be more Objectionable than the pun
| ishment inflicted by the judgment"
In all the cases in this country where the
exercise of the parGOning power has
been under consideration, the necessity
al lns hn TNviGn lnr
rs a condition requisite 10 complete its va
lidity is insisted upon. BOuvier in his law
dictionary sets forth the distinction between
q legislative act of amnesty Or pardon and
special act of executive clemency. The
former Is an act of which courts viii take jul
dicial notice. but the latter 10 avail a criminal
! who pleads it in bar of further prosecution
must be put formally in evidence. because 1t
must judically appear that it has been ac-
cepted.
An Interesting Case
in point, reported in Benedict's District
reports is that of Moses De Puy, who
was pardOned by President johnson i'll
1869, but whose pardon was revoked by
President Grant before his formal ac-
ceptance of it was executed. The secre-
tary of state then was Hon. E. b. Wash
burne who telegraphed to the warden of
the penitentiary to hold DE Puy if he
had not already been released. The
pardon had been mailed to the United
States marshal, but had not been deliy-
cred and accepted by the prisoner, and
so the kilograms arrived in time to pre-
vent his release. He sued out writ of
habeaS corpus, claiming that Gen. Grant
had no power to revoke q pardon grant
ed by his predecessor in office. but this
point was not held good 10y the court,
who were of the opinion that the office
of president did not die with the man
who vacated it. Had De Puy received
and signed his acceptance of the pardon
before the arrival of Secretary Wash
burne'S telegram. he must have been
set free. 1t was the
Want Of the Acceptance
necessary to complete the transaction
that held him in prison. The supreme
court of Alabama held in the case of
Richard Powell, decided in 1854. that
pardon TO be effectual must be delivered
in the same manner as Il conveyance
IN that case, however, they also held
that "a delivery to the warden of the
penitentiary is delivery to the pris-
Oner, and the pardon cannot then be re-
called" The necessity of the accept
ance to give it validity, however, is held
as emphatically as in the other eases.
Mr.. Ingham recognized 4 distinction be-
tween absolute pGrdonS and communal
tiOns of sentences, but thought the rule
as to acceptance must be the same in
both cases. In turning over the law
books to find something relating to
combinations he found a case which
shows how completely the courts have
guarded against any bad faith on the
part of Il prisoner who accepts condi-
tiOnal pardon. A communication of sen
tence is conditional pardon and must
be accepted in good faith by the priS-
oner to whom it is offered, as would APP
pear from a case reported in Is Howard.
eX parte William Willis. This was
case where Willis had been convicted
and sentenced to be hanged, but was
pardOned by the president OH condition
that he suffer Imprisonment in the pen
itentiary of the District Of Columbia
for life. He signed formal acceptance
the conditional pardon, but afterward
sued out petition for babeas corpus
on the ground that his acceptance had
been obtained while under duress. and
for that reason was void He thus
hoped 10 cheat the gallows and jail at
the same time and be set free. The
supreme court of the United States
held that he
SONEn
at the time of the acceptance could not
plead that he made the acceptance while
under dureSs: that duresS which vOidS
an obligation is of a different character
| from legal Imprisonment. and therefore
dismissed his petition. The anarchists
therefore, to obtain the benefit of COM
mutation of their sentence. which is a
! conditional pardon, must subscribe a
! formal acceptance of it. Four of them
have intimated in advance that they will
not do so, but the door of mercy may
still be open to them. Should commu-
tation be granted, and they then refuse
to accept it as the law requires, Sheriff
Matson must then proceed TO do his
duty and regard the commuta-
ton in every such case as
null and void. In other words he must
execute this sentence, Notwithstanding
The governors interference. at the time
fixed by the court. 1t would be a curl
Gus outcome indeed if Gov. Oglesby's
hoped for interference should in the
end be unavailing and the ultimate fate
of these men rest in the hands of the
sheriff. OF course if he acts he must
act on a specified day, and the best law
yers here say that they can discover no
provision Of law which would enable
him to postpone the execution until he
obtains legal advice as TO his proper
course, should any of the prisoners re-
nnest the mercy rendered them. Ac-